I BX 5960 

.06 A4 
I Copy 1 









.BISHOP ONDERDONK'S STATEMENT.^ 



& 




A STATEMENT 




i® 





OF 





m 
%> 










FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES 



CONNECTED WITH THE 



RECENT TRIAL 



OF THE 



BISHOP OF NEW-YORK 







m 




1 




s> 




<st 



S* 



&sk 



b 



r 
b 




NEW- YORK: 

HENRY M. ONDERDONK, 
25 John Street. 

PHILADELPHIA. — GEORGE S. APPLETON, 
148 Chesnut-Street. 

1845. 



fiv 





fl< 



Piercy & Reed, Printers, 9 Spr ace-Street. N. Y. 








5 




BISHOP ONDERDONK'S STATEMENT. 



OF 



FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES 



CONNECTED WITH THE 



RECENT TRIAL 



OP THE 



ISHOP OF NEW- YORK. 



// 




NEW-YORK: 

HENRY M. ONDERDONK,. 

25 John-Street. 

PHILADELPHIA;— GEORGE S. APPLETON, 

148 Chesnut-Street. 

1845. 



o 



6* 



Entered according to act of Congress, A. D. 1845, by Henry M. Onderdone, 
the Clerk's Office for the Southern District of New York. 



PEERCY & REED, Printers, 

9 Spruce Street, New York. 



Portions of the following Statement having been read t$ 

several friends, the desire has been expressed to have it more 

generally communicated to the diocese. It is therefore now 

made public* 

Ht T» O. 

Netv-York, Jan. 15, 1845-, 



STATEMENT OP FACTS, &c. 



Oft the first day of last October^ I left home for the city of 
Philadelphia, to attend to my duties as a member of our Gene* 
ral Ecclesiastical Convention, which was to meet in that city& 
The Convention of my own diocese had just closed its annual 
session. It had been unusually large, and distinguished by a 
very marked degree of unity and harmony* The circumstan* 
ces under which it assembled, were such as to render its pro- 
ceedings a very special proof of the kindest feelings of confi- 
dence and affection on the part of the clergy and laity of the 
diocese, toward their Bishop* The reports laid before it, and 
there made to me, gave strong evidence of the divine goodness 
in blessing the diocese with a large measure of spiritual and tern* 
poral good. 

Rejoicing in the consolation and encouragement thus afford- 
ed, I repaired to the General Convention, and gave myself to 
its duties in a spirit of humble and grateful devotion to the 
Church. Soon, however, it became manifest, from the deport- 
ment of several of my Right Reverend brethren, that they had 
somewhat against me. They said nothing. Not a word did I 
hear of any rumors or accusations against me ; not a word of 
a brother's anxiety to be set right 5 not a word of fraternal warn- 
ing, caution, or admonition. Cold, repulsive, discourteous man- 
ner, told a dark and uncertain tale on which Christian converse 
might and should have thrown light. 

Some six or seven days after the opening of the Convention* 
when the House of Bishops were about coming to order, Bishop 
Meade approached me, and suggested that I had better leave 
the House. I expressed my surprise, and asked why he made 
the suggestion. He said he could not explain the reasons, but 
again urged me to absent myself. On my repeating my sur* 



e 

prise at a proposition so dark and suspicious, and so little com- 
porting with the courtesy of a gentleman, the duty of a friend 
and brother, and the proprieties of a Christian, he said that if I 
continued in the House my feelings might be hurt. This in- 
creased my surprise, and I demanded of him his reasons for so 
strange a procedure. He hesitated about giving any explana- 
tion. I warmly expostulated with him on the injustice and 
wickedness of the course he was pursuing. At length, as if re- 
luctantly compelled, he said that there were reports unfavorable 
to my character, respecting which he wished to take the coun- 
sel of the Bishops. I felt what I trust was just indignation, and 
expressed myself to this effect : — Now my course is clear. I 
will not shrink. I will remain at my post. If any man has 
aught against me, let him look me in the face, and say what it 
is. I also spoke strongly of his unworthy design of inducing 
me to withdraw, that he might, in my absence, make my char- 
acter and conduct the subject of discussion in the House of 
Bishops. He replied, Not in the House of Bishops but before 
the Bishops informally ! ! This unholy evasion was the 
subject of severe remarks ; but I trust not more severe than it 
deserved. I asked what were the charges against me 1 He 
said he was not at liberty to tell ; and there our conversation 
ended. This was all I ever heard from this brother of his 
having aught against me until he was about to become one of 
my presenters for trial, Yet I have good evidence that Bishop 
Meade had, for years, been speaking against me, and contri- 
buting towards public rumor to my prejudice. 

After some time Bishop Meade came to me again, and said 
in substance, You were right. I will have nothing more to do 
with the matter. They must attend to their own business. 
These last words satisfied me that he had been acting in concert 
with others. And when we consider the darkness and secrecy 
with which he acted his part, how can an honorable and chris- 
tian man think otherwise than that he was connected with a 
conspiracy against me ! 

On, I think, Monday, October 14th, the Presiding Bishop in 
fcus place in the House of Bishops, held in his hand a paper, of 



which a copy had been previously sent to me, directed to him 
as President, which he asked if it was the pleasure of the House 
to have read. Its purport was demanded by one of the Bishops. 
Bishop Chase, the Presiding Bishop, said that it related to the 
character and conduct of the Bishop of New- York, and he 
asked me if I wished to retire. Of course, so extraordinary an 
inquiry, was answered jn the negative. Earnest remonstrance 
was made by several of the Bishops against the propriety 
of such a paper having been brought into the House, and 
against its being received, opened, or read ; because it was 
uncanonical and disorderly to bring a Bishop's character un- 
der the official notice of his brethren, except in the mode point - 
ed out by law. The ultimate result was a refusal to receive 
the document,, and its being returned unopened to the persons 
who had presented it. I need hardly say, that I felt myself 
deeply injured by the Presiding Bishop in his allowing himself 
to be an agent in so irregular and unjust a procedure, as bringing 
such a document into the House. 

On or about Thursday, October 17th, I understood that a 
number of affidavits had been procured by the Rev. James C. 
Richmond, of Rhode Island, injurious to my character, and 
were placed in the hands of Bishop Elliott. 

Of Mr. Richmond it is unnecessary that I say much. His 
erratic peculiarities are well known. He had but a few weeks 
before, called on me, and expressed a warm desire to return 
to my diocese, that he might be my friend and stand by me in 
my troubles. I have since heard of his having expressed him- 
self of me in terms of hostility, for the letter which I wrote to 
the Archbishop of Canterbury unfavorable to his well known 
project of going as a volunteer Bishop to the Turks ; and also 
for my not sanctioning his desire to preach in one of the publiG 
squares in this city. He was now employed for my destruc- 
tion, and told a clerical brother, the Rev. Mr. Van Bokkelen, 
that his- expenses were paid. 

On Tuesday October 22d, Bishop Ives informed me that he 
had heard the affidavits read. I understood that certain of my 
friends had been very urgent for an opportunity being allow- 



8 

ed them and me of either seeing or hearing them. This 
was sternly resisted until October 22 d. Then, unknown to 
me, they were read to three of my friends not designated by 
myself. Here was certainly a piece of great injustice, that 
being denied either a sight or hearing of these affidavits, I 
should not even be allowed to choose the friends who should 
hear or see them in my behalf. 

From what Bishop Ives told me of his recollection of the affi- 
davits, I said at once that they contained misrepresentations 
and gross exaggerations. I told Bishop Ives, moreover, that 
I was confident that if I could have a conversation with 
Bishop Elliott, including an opportunity of seeing or hear- 
ing the affidavits, I could make such statements and explana- 
tions as he would see to have a just claim upon his considera- 
tion in reference to the question, whether there was ground for 
presentment. I asked Bishop Ives to request of Bishop Elliott, 
for me, such an interview. The request was made and refused. 
The most solemn assurance and pledge of honour, however, 
were given by Bishop Elliott, that he would not become a 
presenter until my friends and myself should have the oppor- 
tunity which I asked. I complained afterwards to Bishop 
Doane, of what I thought the unjust and ungenerous course oi 
Bishop Elliott in refusing me a sight or hearing of the charges, 
and an opportunity of explanation. Bishop Doane sympathised 
with my view of the case, and promised to speak to Bishop 
Elliott. He did so, and the result was the same refusal for the 
present, and the same promise and pledge that my request 
should be met before he (Bishop Elliott) would act as a pre* 
senter. 

I was told, further, that besides the affidavits then in hand, 
a large number of others would be forthcoming by the follow- 
ing Friday morning, October 25th. My calls at home rendered 
it necessary for me to leave Philadelphia on the morning 
of Thursday 24th. In New York, Bishop Ives, who had 
come on about the same time, observed to me that I need be 
under no apprehension of the presentment being made without 
my friends and myself having the desired opportunity of con- 



9 

sidering and commenting upon the charges, as Bishop Elliott 
was in honor bound to see that such opportunity should be 
given. 

Bishop Ives left New York on Friday 25th, the day until 
which Bishop Elliott (with whom it was now understood 
Bishops Meade and Otey were united,) was to wait for the 
expected large addition of affidavits. On Monday 28th, I 
received a letter from Bishop Ives, dated in Philadelphia on 
the 26th. The promised new affidavits had not arrived. Bishop 
Ives had asked Bishop Elliott if he would be Willing to be a 
presenter. That must depend, he said, upon evidence yet to 
be produced. It is believed that not a single additional affida- 
vit was used for the presentment. 

On Wednesday, October 30th, the Bishops met in the General 
Theological Seminary, New York, as its Visitors. It had been 
told me a day or two before, on the authority, I think, of 
Bishop Otey, that the three Bishops would probably come to 
a determination on Friday, Nov. 1st. I afterwards learned 
from Bishop Doane, as the result of a conversation with them* 
that a presentment would probably be made on Friday or 
Saturday. 

It soon came to my knowledge that certain persons— Mr. 
John Jay of this city, and, Mr. C. G. Memminger of Charles- 
ton, S. C, then in this city, being particularly named — were 
going about investigating rumors against me, and for that pur* 
pose calling on families where they had reason to hope they 
might hear something to my disadvantage. The three Bishops, 
meanwhile, waiting in readiness to receive any thing which 
might thus be brought to them. 

The expected Friday and Saturday passed without my re- 
ceiving a presentment. On Sunday, November 3d, Bishop 
Kemper told me that he had, a day or two before, spoken to 
the Senior Bishop on the subject ; who told him that he had 
notified the three Bishops that he should leave town the fol- 
lowing Tuesday, previously to which he would be in readiness 
to receive any communication from them. On Monday 4th, 
Bishop Kemper told me that he had on that day seen Bishop 
Otey, who told him that the next day, Tuesday 5th, 10 o'clock, 



10 

A. M., had been fixed on as the time for bringing the matter 
to an issue. On the evening of that day, at about 10 o'clock, 
I received the following letter from the three Bishops : — 

t -. — - - i 

"New York, November 5, 1844. 
" Right Reverend and Dear Brother, — 

" Daring the investigation of the painful charges, which have been laid be- 
fore us, affecting the purity of your conduct, a short pastoral address to the 
Clergy and Laity of your Diocese, has been handed us, which leads us to sup- 
pose, that notwithstanding the clear definition of the position in which we now 
stand in relation to yourself, made in your presence in the House of Bishops, 
you misunderstand that position, and assume it to be connected with persons 
and circumstances with which it has no concern whatever. 

" These charges, you may remember, were laid before the House of Bishops 
in a memorial purporting to come from two highly respectable clergymen, 
and three equally respectable laymen of the Church, and all holding the 
responsible office of Trustees of the General Theological Seminary. Of these 
memorialists, two or three had been solemnly charged by the Diocese of South 
Carolina to investigate rumors affecting the welfare of the Seminary ; and in 
the course of that investigation, these charges against your moral purity had 
come before them in such a responsible shape, that they felt compelled, by a 
sense of duty, to lay them before the House of Bishops as Visitors of the 
Seminary. You may remember likewise, that upon the appearance of that 
memorial, an excited discussion was likely to arise respecting the right of the 
Bishops to receive such a paper coming in such a shape, when one of us, your 
brethren, and in your presence, submitted certain questions determining the 
position of any three Bishops, who might entertain for presentment the 
charges of the said memorialists. These questions laid over for a whole day, 
during which the propositions of the Bishop of Western New York, respecting 
alterations in the Constitution of the Foreign and Domestic Missionary Society, 
were discussed ; and upon the next morning a full and free discussion was had 
in your presence, you yourself taking part in the conversation, in which these 
points were considered as combining the views of the House of Bishops : 

" 1. That the three Bishops presenting occupied very much the position of a 
grand jury, who are to take care that the evidence submitted to them was such 
as to make out a prima facie case against the accused. 

"2. That these Bishops should not be considered justifiable in presenting 
except upun the testimony of responsible persons, delivered before themselves 



n 

personally, or duly witnessed before some civil magistrate qualified to adminis- 
ter an oath. 

"3. That the acts charged, or if constituting a sequence, some of them at 
least, should come within a period of time not barred by an equitable statute of 
limitations. 

" Under these circumstances, and with these views, we, as your brethren, 
and with the purpose of shielding you from rumors which were deeply affecting 
your character, and preventing a public exposure of you upon ex parte evidence, 
as well as for the protection of the House of Bishops against the imputation 
of refusing to listen to charges against any one of its body, have been placed 
in the painful position which we now occupy in relation to yourself. We can 
assure you that we have none other than the kindest feelings towards you as a 
man, and trust in God that you will be enabled to answer to the satisfaction of 
the House of Bishops the charges which we shall feel bound, as things now 
appear, to present against you to the Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal 
Ghurch. 

" From your pastoral, you seem to labor under another misapprehension, 
which we hasten to remove. And that is, that there has been any secrecy in 
this matter, or any hunting after evidence on our part. Every paper received 
by us in Philadelphia was frankly and freely read by one of our number to 
Bishop Ives, Dr. Wainwright, and Dr. Berrian, with the understanding that 
their contents should be communicated fully to yourself, and with the promise 
which we now perform, that no final action should be had in this case, until 
you and your friends had been advised of the same. Since our arrival in New 
York, we have not been collecting, but receiving and sifting testimony ; and by 
this caution, have been enabled to clear up, satisfactorily to ourselves, one of 
the most disagreeable of the charges which had been laid before us. We are 
compelled, however, to state, that enough remains, as will appear from the 
articles accompanying this communication, together with the names of the 
witnesses, to render it incumbent upon us to lay the matter before the House 
of Bishops, that you may, God helping you, forever put at rest these charges 
against your moral purity, or else receive humbly the punishment which may 
be meted out to you in the premises. 

" We sincerely trust that you will not misconceive our motives, nor mis- 
understand our course of action. Our desire is, we repeat it, for your sake 
and the Church's sake, to bring out the truth and nothing but the truth, and to 
pray you to help us in it, that your character may stand before the world, aa 
that of a Christian Bishop should, blameless and spotless. 



12 

"We have delayed making this communication until we ascertained, satis- 
factorily to ourselves, that it was necessary to trouble you at all upon this 
painful matter. 
"And now commending you to God, we remain, 

" very sincerely and affectionately, 

84 your brethren in the Episcopate, 

" William Meade, D. Di 
"Ja. H. Otey> 
"Stephen Elliott, Jr.* 

The above letter was accompanied by a document contain* 
ihg^not Copies of the affidavits* which I had particularly 
desired to see, and the granting of the request to see which had 
been guarantied by Bishop Elliott's promise and pledge, but — » 
the charges intended to be embodied in the presentment ; and a 
Verbal message that they would receive any communication 
from me the next morning at ten o'clock? 

This was the only redemption of Bishop Elliott's repeated 
pledge, that before the affidavits were used for the purpose of 
presentment, any request should be granted for my friends and 
myself to see or hear them, with opportunity of offering to 
the presenters explanations or counter- statements. My friends 
in this city Were patiently and respectfully waiting, in sure 
expectation of an honorable redemption of the pledge, When 
I was told, at ten o'clock at night, that we were allowed until 
ten o'clock the next morning ! I need not say how useless was 
this offer, and hoW Utter the fallacy of any distinction that 
may be imagined between the sending of this letter and docu- 
ment, and the serving upon me at once of the presentment. 

Thus it appears, that although it had been boastfully vaunted, 
as early as about the middle of October* that proof of guilt was 
in possession sufficient for my official destruction* and Was 
deposited With Bishop Elliott, With whom Bishops Meade and 
Otey Were soon connected, yet Was it not until November 5th> 

* At this time two of my Presbyters called on the presenting Bishops-, and remon- 
strated with them on the shortness of the time allowed. They offered another day* So 
ievident, however. Was their haste to make up for past delay) and indeed so incompe- 
tent even the additionally allowed time to answer the purpose originally designed by 
my request and Bishop Elliott's promise— seeing that my past ignorance of the par- 
ticular charges had allowed me no opportunity of preparation — that the real character 
fcf the procedure was not thus materially alteredv 



13 

that I was apprized of their readiness to proeeed. Meanwhile* 
if I am rightly informed, they gained no new affidavit, nor 
coulc aught be found against me for a period more recent than 
nearly two years and a half. Ample opportunity, however, 
had thus been afforded to my enemies for prosecuting their 
designs. Nor was it unimproved by them. Every effort was 
made to ruin me in the estimation of the church and the world. 
The most bare-faced falsehoods were circulated verbally and 
through the press. Through the influence of the latter, my 
character and conduct were subjected to the most scurrilous 
abuse in all parts of the country ; an evil which, it is obvious, 
pampering as it does the basest and most malignant, but not on 
that account the least welcome, passions and affections of the 
natural heart, it is hard and toilsome for virtue and integrity to 
arrest. 

Such was the cruel treatment to which I w T as subjected by 
the delays of the presenters, and the abominable practices 
against me which those delays encouraged ; when, as appears 
by the issue, their work could have been as well done at least a 
fortnight earlier. No one need be told how much, through 
press and tongue, a fortnight may accomplish, in the work of 
evil speaking, lying, and slandering, when an aggravated case 
is sought to be made out, and the ruin of an obnoxious indi- 
vidual is the object. 

To the above letter of the three Bishops, I sent the following 
reply ;— 

" To the Right Reverend 

" Bishops Meade, Otey, and Elliott. 
Brethren: 

"Your communication of yesterday was handed to me last evening. 

"You are mistaken in supposing that in what I say of "plans, means, and 
efforts," in my short address to the clergy and people of my charge,. I had any refer- 
ence to yourselves. I referred to what I understood to be the movements of the 
two clergymen and three laymen of whom you speak, and of others prompted by 
them ; and especially the plans and efforts for obtaining the presence and services 
of the Rev. James C . Richmond, a brother who, for whatever erroneous course he 
may pursue, is probably more entitled to pity than blame ; and who> I may observe 



I - « 

lhere> not a month before the meeting of the General Convention, had called 6a 
me, and expressed a warm desire to return to my diocese, that he might stand dy 
me in my troubles, and be my friend. Whether, however, they who make use of 
Buch a one are equally exempt from blame, I leave to sound principle and correal 
feeling to determine. 

" In what I say of not being allowed to see statements made against me, I 
frankly confess that I do refer, in part, to Bishop Eliiott. lie had the papers. He 
knew I wished to see them. He knew I asked to see them. He knew I desired 
an interview with him respecting them. He refused both to let me see them, and 
to converse with me about them. I consider what was at length done in reading 
them to some of my friends by no means an equivalent to the act of justice and 
brotherly regard which I asked. It was yielded, as I was told, not without diffi- 
culty. The like was refused to others of my friends who earnestly sought it ; and 
ki the measure and mode in which it was conceded^ I was not allowed the common 
justice of selecting the friends to whom that would be granted as a boon which was 
equitably due. I have no fault to find with the choice which was made ; but I 
contend that the choice should have been my own. In this matter of refusing me 
a eight or hearing of the accusations brought against me, and leaving me to gather 
a knowledge of them from the impressions made on, and the recollections had by* 
friends not of my own choosing, Mr. Trapier, and those associated with him, are 
connected in my mind with Bishop Elliott; and I am not aware in what exact 
measure they are respectively to be held responsible. 

" Your view of the opinions expressed by the Bishops, touching the true charac- 
ter and relations of presenters, is, according to my recollection, not strictly accu ' 
rate. It appears to me that it was generally understood that presenting Bishops 
sustained a position differing in many important respects from presenters or prose . 
cutors in civil or criminal courts. While their relation to the church is that of 
jealous guardians of its purity, good repute, and interests, they should also sustain 
to the accused the relation of friend and brother, bound to him by very near sym - 
pathies, and acting as a shield and defence for him against the malice of the world, 
and the persecutions of public rumor and accusation. Hence I certainly gathered 
it to be the general opinion of the Bishops, that the fraternal relations between 
the accused and those who may move in the matter of his presentment, were not 
to be sacrificed ; but that he should expect, and they should concede, all opportu- 
nity on his part to place his explanations and counter-statements in the opposite 
scale to that in which the assertions of his accusers were cast, for such considera- 
tion as to those his episcopal brethren may seem right in the full acting out of their 
solemn obligation so to minister discipline as not to forget mercy, and be so merci- 
ful as not to be too remiss. 

'« It is a matter of unfeigned surprise to me, that in your enumeration of the 



15 

opinions of the Bishops, relative to the character, relations, and duties of pre 

senters, you should have omitted an item of very great importance, included in 

Bishop Elliott's able and clear remarks on the subject. I allude to maliciom 

motive. He emphatically stated this as a matter to be looked into before any 

Bishops should consent to be presenters. I have heard it spoken of by brothe* 

Bishops as evidence of his high, honorable, and just principles and views. How 

could you have omitted it? It necessarily supposes an opportunity to the accused 

of being heard. 

" In the present case, brethren, if the opportunity were given which Bishop 

Elliott's repeated pledge was justly deemed to secure, I assume that a clear case of 
malicious motive may be made out ; that other views than regard for the purity of 
the church may be shown as lying at the foundation of this movement 5 and that a 
well denned conspiracy, not, it is to be feared, falling short of our own house in its 
comprehensiveness, may be made manifest. 

"Your expressions, brethren, of kindness and friendship, are very well. There 
are a practical extent and operation, however, in these virtues, enforced by sound 
morals and Christian principle, which require something more than words as evil 
dence of the truth and sincerity of the profession of them. Now, what evidence 
have I had in reference to yourselves 1 For the last few days of my continuance 
in Philadelphia, the conduct of each of you towards me was the reverse of frater- 
nal, friendly, or courteous ; and any thing but indicative of your being governed 
by the essentially just maxim of esteeming a man innocent until he is proved 
guilty. It was very obvious that you had prejudged my case, and secretly pro- 
nounced me guilty. Of Bishop Elliott I sought a brotherly interview, which he 
denied me. Since your arrival in this city, not one of you has been near me. You 
have been among my people, preached to them, to a certain extent sought their 
money for your dioceses ; used the sanction which myself gave you for doing so . 
and yet not paid me the ordinary official courtesy of a call at my residence. You 
have had your ears open to all the gossip and scandal which men reducing them, 
selves to the low caste of informers and panders could seek out and scrape toge- 
ther for the use of my inveterate enemies. It being thus known that there were 
Bishops here who made it their business to receive, examine, and sift such testi- 
mony, has done more to bring public scandal on the church than all else connected 
with this business, and has given an intensity of malignant effort to men desperately 
set upon my ruin. You have thus been the means of creating the public rumor 
which is, I understand, an assumed ground of action for the defence and purifying 
of the church. Thus have you contributed to make me, and through me our 
office, our church, and our religion, a scoffing to the profane : and done not a little 
to aggravate my wretchedness, and help the purpose of my enemies to bring on 

my niin. Contrast with all this what you say of friendly and Christian feelings 
towards me. 



16 

" You speak of having ' been enabled to clear up satisfactorily one of the most 
disagreeable of the charges which had been laid before' you. What this is, you say 
not. Report, before I left Philadelphia, and since I carae home, has said that you 
were in possession of an affidavit charging me with presence in a house of ill fame. 
The report, as was to be expected, spread widely. As was also to be expected, it 
swelled in character until the act was magnified into a habit. As my friends, 
you were bound to give me at once the name of my false accuser, that he might be 
summarily prosecuted for his villainy. Is it possible that this is the ' disagreeable' 
thing to which you so coolly advert? 

" Had you allowed me the opportunity which Bishop Elliott's pledge made my 
right, I might have enabled you to clear up other charges against me. 

" The subject of your professed kind and friendly feelings toward me is insepa. 
rably connected in my mind with peculiar circumstances relating to two of your 
number. Of Bishop Meade I was asked, two or three days ago, whether I con- 
sidered him my friend. The question was put by a gentleman who had been in 
Virginia, and who said that his doubts on the subject were the result of what he 
had there heard, I think from the Bishop himself. I cannot but connect this with 
his present position, and particularly with his effort, at the late General Convention, 
to get rid of me, that he might, in my absence, make my character the subject of 
remark among my brethren. 

" Of Bishop Otey, too, I am compelled to speak, in this connection, though with 
great pain. At different times an inmate of my family, much beloved and esteemed 
by them, he has not now called to see us. He has avoided all intercourse with 
me. He has, as one of you, been accessible to all sorts of stories against me, and 
such as he must know my enemies design to push to my ruin and degradation, and 
to the wretchedness and penury of my family. He can yet find it in his heart to 
give me no chance of explanation ; and still unite in professions of brotherly regard 
and Christian kindness. 

" Had Bishop Elliott's pledge, brethren, been redeemed in its true spirit and 
meaning, I could have added various considerations not unmeet to have been 
regarded by you in connection with the question of presentment. So obvious, 
however, is it that your minds are set, and your determination formed, that I can- 
not but regard such considerations as useless. I leave the whole matter in your 
hands ; willing to meet any investigation which you may think fit to institute. 

" Deeply grieved at what I cannot but think the unjust and ungenerous treat- 
ment which I have received at your hands, I still beg you to be assured of the cor*- 

tinued prayers for your individual welfare, and for a blessing on your official func- 
tions, of 

" Your brother in Christ, 

" Benjamin T. Onderj&qnk. 
« New York, November 6, 1844." 



17 

To this letter the following answer was received : — 

"New York, November 9, 1844. 
" Right Rev. and Dear Brother : 

" Yours of the sixth instant, received by us on the evening of the eighth, requires 
only a few words hi reply. 

" We consider the promise made by one of our number in Philadelphia as ful- 
filled in letter and in spirit by our communication of the fifth instant. We reiterate 
what we stated in that communication, that we have acted throughout this whole 
matter, in a frank and generous maimer to you and your friends, and that there has 
been no secrecy, at any moment, in regard to our position, or the evidence received 
by us. We regret to perceive in your reply that the motives of our action are ques- 
tioned ; but in this stage of the business we deem it inconsistent with our duty to 
enter upon any discussion of that matter. We trust that the conduct of the trial 
will be such as to satisfy you that our single desire is to bring out the truth, and 
nothing but the truth, and settle these painful charges one way or the other. As 
the case is now in the hands of the Presiding Bishop, we must decline any further 
correspondence upon these matters. 

" Reciprocating your prayers and good wishes, 

" We remain your brethren in the church, 

"William Meade, 

"James H. Otey, 

" Stephen Elliott, Jr." 

On the ninth of November, the presentment, signed by the 
above-named Bishops, and the canonical summons to attend 
the trial, were served upon me. 

The presentment contains internal evidence of its having 
been the wish of the presenters not only to bring me to trial on 
specifications of misconduct for which I ought reasonably to be 
held accountable, but also to make out as bad a case as possi- 
ble, and to strengthen prejudice against me. What but this 
last desire could have induced them to frame the ninth article ! 
This specifies nothing. It merely charges sundry acts of impro- 
priety during the space of the last seven years. None will deny 
that the promptness with which it was thrown out by the court, 
was its bounden duty, and an act of mere justice. None, appre- 
ciating the righteous dealing which should characterize actions 
of this kind, will, I apprehend, justify such a charge. Will any 
doubt that it could have been seen to have no ether bearing 
than to strengthen prejudice against the accused in the minds 
of his judges ? 



18 

The greater number of the specifications are unsupported in the 
presentment by other affidavits than those of third parties, and 
one of them, it is believed, had no affidavit whatever in its sup- 
port. 

Intemperance was one of the immoralities with which, it was 
stated by the ostensible movers in this matter, in Philadelphia, 
I was charged by rnmor. All that the presenters could find 
available on this subject, was an allegation of my having been 
under the influence of vinous or spirituous liquor, on one occa- 
sion, more than seven years before. How fairly the verdict of 
guilty was sustained by the evidence, will appear when that is 
made public. The charging of an insulated act so many years 
before certainly looks very like a resolution and endeavor to 
blacken my character as much as possible. 

It appears by the presentment, as I have before observed, 
that notwithstanding the prying and untiring vigilance of my 
enemies, the presenters could lay nothing to my charge alleged 
to have occurred within a less period than nearly two years 
and a half last past. 

With regard to the specifications generally, two remarks 
may be made. 

1. They are assigned to periods of time so distant as to place 
the defence under peculiar disadvantages — a. circumstance 
which, if I understand right, lies at the foundation of the just 
and righteous principle that gave rise to statutes of limitation. 
This delay in seeking redress was needless, as ample canoni- 
cal provision for it had all the while existed. 

2. The matters charged were such as, in their very nature, 
to preclude direct counter-testimony. The defence is neces- 
sarily confined to circumstantial evidence going to prove the 
improbability or impossibility of the charges, or defect in the 
credibility of the witnesses. 

My plea of not guilty was made with a good conscience, and 
is still sacredly adhered to.* For its justification I must appeal 



* It has been rumoured that in my .address to the court, between conviction and sen- 
tence, T acimttted the truth of the charges. The readers of that document will, I think, 
see that this was not the case. It is evident, from the very object of that address, that 
it ought to have been framed on the supposition of the sufficiency of the evidence for 



19 

to the testimony as it is to be laid before the church. Justice 
to myself, however, requires that I add thereto a few state- 
ments and considerations. I will take up the Articles of the 
presentment in reversed order, beginning with the seventh and 
eighth, which are essentially one. 

Much stress is laid in the argument of the counsel for the 
prosecution upon a supposed admission by me of the facts 
therein charged. This, it will be perceived, rests on the 
testimony of witnesses who stated their want of precise 
recollection of circumstances occurring so long ago, and rather 
on their inferences than on a recollection of words. On this 
subject I submit, as the true one, the following statement : 

There was between Mr. Beare and myself, while he was a 
candidate for orders, a stronger and more affectionate attach- 
ment than usually exists between Bishops and their candidates. 
His visits to me were frequent. He is the son of an old and 
valued friend of mine long since deceased. His widowed 
mother made me repeated visits to thank me for my interest in 
her son, and to commend him to my continued care, always 
adding assurances of his filial love and confidence towards 
me. His settlement at Little Neck was the result of arrange- 
ments made by me ; and I gave him letters which secured him 
the friendship and confidence of the neighboring clergy. When 
I was called on, as stated in the evidence, by four Reverend 
brethren, and informed that the feelings of Mr. and Mrs. Beare 
had been wounded by me, my conscience acquitted me of all 
just cause for censure, and I was hurt at the allegation. Dr. 
Muhlenberg's account of the particulars, as derived from Mr. 
Beare, was a very confused and indistinct one. It rather 
hinted at than described them. It conveyed to my mind, how- 
ever, enough to satisfy me that there had been great exaggera- 
tion on the part of Mrs. Beare, or great misapprehension on 
his. I adverted to the unfavorable position of one thus accused, 



the verdict which had been found. This is the amount of the alleged admission. There 
will also be found in the address pr6of that enquiry into the evidence was only waived 
not abandoned. 



20 

inasmuch as the very nature of the allegation precluded direct 
counter-testimony, other than the asseveration of one interested 
party against that of another. I expressed, however, my desire 
to see Mr. Beare, and my confidence that I could satisfy him 
that there must be misapprehension. This interview then 
closed with the understanding that Mr. Beare was to call on 
me the next day. The account, confused and indistinct as I 
have said, given by Dr. Muhlenberg, of the alleged particulars, 
was all I ever had of them until I saw them detailed in the pre- 
sentment. Had they been laid before me at this interview in 
the form given to them in that instrument, truth would have 
required my denial to be yet more positive. 

On the following day, Mr. Beare called, accompanied by 
Drs. Milnor, Muhlenberg, and Higbee. He was evidently in 
much distress on account of the statements which he had heard 
respecting me. It has often been laid to my charge, by both 
friends and foes, that I am too confiding, and too apt to be 
swayed by the professions, sensibilities, and feelings of others. 
I will not now stop to say whether, notwithstanding the dear- 
bought experience which this has cost me, I would prefer to it 
a cold, suspicious, and repulsive temperament. Whether it 
was a weakness or not, I frankly confess I was moved by seeing 
Mr. Beare thus grieved at the idea of having been ill treated 
by myself. I saw a young man whom I loved with paternal 
affection, in tears because of supposed injuries inflicted by me. 
My own tears were drawn forth in sympathy. I gave vent to 
the honest impulses of my heart in expressions of deep regret 
that I should have been the occasion of distress to him and his 
wife ; but disavowed all intention to be so, and any conduct 
which could be justly so regarded. In reference, I supposed, to 
my denial, on the preceding day, of what I understood to be 
his wife's allegations, he asked me whether I meant to impeach 
her veracity. Dr. Muhlenberg had said the day before, that 
Mrs. Beare had given her statement to her husband while under 
great excitement and agitation. With this in my mind, I replied 
in substance, that I did not mean to impeach her veracity, for 
that, under peculiar states of mind, imagination may often go be- 
yond reality, memory prove treacherous, and erroneous impres- 
sions be conveyed, or erroneous statements given, without any 



21 

purpose of deception. I have no hesitation in avowing that a 
prominent feeling in my mind was a desire to soothe my young 
friend, and avoid whatever might tend to mar his happiness, and 
therefore to put the most favorable construction on what I knew 
to be his wife's erroneous statements. In reference to this, I added 
that it would be little consolation to me to relieve my own distress 
by adding to that of others. I do not remember that his ques- 
tion was repeated. If it was, I answered it in the same way. 
I was moved,. by seeing his distress, to a repetition of my regret 
at having been, however unconsciously and unjustly, a source 
of pain to himself and his wife. I hesitated not to ask to be 
forgiven for it, and assured him that the most scrupulous re- 
gard to their feelings, and endeavor to promote their happiness, 
should hereafter show the sincerity with which I now addressed 
him. These sentiments, perhaps repeated by me, I desired him 
to communicate to his wife. He said he was satisfied, and 
hoped that she would be. The visitors soon took leave, all 
shaking hands with me. Rejoicing in the appearance of my 
young friend's having his mind relieved, and his wonted feelings 
of friendship for me restored, I pressed his arm with my hand 
as he left the door of the room. He took the hand in his, and 
returned the pressure in a manner which my heart did not fail 
to appreciate. 

Whatever weakness the above detail may seem to indicate 
on my part, and however the issue may show me to have been 
too confiding, what I have said is true. Let it go for what of 
right it should, in the momentous question now at issue. 

The counsel for the prosecution said emphatically, more than 
once, that if it could be made to appear that parties, who, in 
this suit, complained of having been seriously aggrieved, had 
since acted towards the alleged aggressor in a manner incon- 
sistent with a sense of wrong and injury done them, this cir- 
cumstance must go very far towards casting suspicion upon 
their complaints, and upon the testimony brought to sustain 
them. The justice of this must be obvious. It was the ground 
of much of the testimony adduced on the part of the defence. 
By that testimony it was clearly shown that I had received at- 
tentions from Mr. and Mrs. Beare, since the alleged outrage 
upon their feelings, totally inconsistent with the ground now 



22 

taken by them. To the evidence on this point, I have some- 
what to add. 

When Mr. Beare was asked as a witness at the trial, how soon 
after the circumstances alleged by him against me, he called on 
me ? He said that it was a few months previous to his ordination 
as priest, thus naturally conveying the idea that the visit had a 
reference to that event. This is not so. The subject of his ordina- 
tion was introduced by him at a later day, in a letter. His 
first visit was some three or four months after the time of the 
alleged insult, I having been, for the greater part of the inter- 
mediate period, out of the city. It was, to all appearance, a 
friendly visit, having no special business in view, not called for 
by any official etiquette, and therefore perfectly voluntary. It 
was, I confess, very grateful to me, as proof that his friendly 
feelings were entirely restored. 

Among the evidences of conduct towards me, on the part of 
Mr. and Mrs. Beare, inconsistent with the idea of their having 
had their feelings wounded by me, prominence is given in the 
evidence, to an invitation to dine with them, and its being urged 
notwithstanding an invitation for me to dine, on the same day, 
with a highly valued friend, in whose family I had repeatedly 
been a kindly received, a hospitably entertained, and cer- 
tainly a happy guest. The fact of my having had this latter 
invitation seemed, by their testimony, to have been strangely 
forgotten by Mr. and Mrs. Beare. The readers of the evi- 
dence, however, will have no doubt that it was given, and. 
was known by them to have been so. 

Additional evidence on this subject might have been brought 
before the court. I yielded, however, to the suggestion that the 
testimony of any of my own family might be considered objec- 
tionable. Appealing now to those whose heads and hearts 
will not suffer them to admit the objection, I hesitate not to 
give the affidavit of my son. It is as follows : 

44 City and County of New YofcK, ss. : 

" Henry M. Onderdonk, of the city of New York, being duly sworn, doth de- 
pose and say, that on Monday, the fifth day of August, in the year of our Lord 
one thousand eight hundred and forty-four, the Rev. Henry M. Beare, Rector of 



23 

Zion Church,'_Little Neck, Long Island, came into deponent's book-store, No. 
25 John Street, in said city, at which time the following circumstances and con- 
versation occurred : 

"The said Henry M. Beare, after being in the said store a few moments, 
asked deponent if he were Bishop Onderdonk's nephew, and upon being an- 
swered in the negative, and told that deponent was Bishop Onderdonk's son, the 
said Henry M. Beare extended his hand in a friendly and cordial manner, and 
inquired particularly after deponent's father. The said Henry M. Beare then 
examined and selected some books, inquiring at the same time how deponent's 
business succeeded. A reply having been made, the said Henry M. Beare 
remarked that deponent's success was certain, as deponent's father had a nume : 
rous circle of friends, and thereupon promised to give deponent the benefit of 
whatever business he, the said Beare, might have in the book line. 

" The said Henry M. Beare then entered into a general conversation with 

deponent, in the course of which he made mention of the difficulties he had to 
contend with in his parish, in consequence of the lack of education and refine- 
ment among his parishioners, and of its being a continued source of annoyance 
to him, by leaving him without any society congenial to his taste. He also 
referred to the pleasure derived from occasional visits of acquaintances from 
the city, and spoke of deponent's father's visit to his parish at the time of his 
ordination. He also stated that deponent's father had dined with nim at that 
time, and that he had with difficulty persuaded him (deponent's father) to do so 
on account of a previous invitation given and accepted to dine elsewhere, and 
referred to that dinner with evident satisfaction and pleasure. The said Henry 
M. Beare remained in deponent's store from one-half to three-quarters of an. 
hour, purchased some books, among which was a sermon written by deponent's 
father, and upon leaving, shook hands and tendered the hospitalities of his home 
on Long Island to deponent, and desired to be remembered to deponent's* 
father. 

" Deponent further saith, that in about three or four weeks after the said fifth 
of August, the said Henry M. Beare, again came into deponent's store, inquiring 
as before, in the same friendly manner, after deponent's father. 

" Deponent further saith, that the substance of this affidavit was, to the beet 

of his knowledge and belief, communicated to his father, before he heard or 

knew of any difficulty or difference between him and the said Henry M. Beare, 

and that it was made voluntarily, and without a request from any person what 

soever. 

" Henry M. Onderdonk. 

" Sworn before me, the 2d day of January, 1845. 

" James P. Howard, Commissioner of deeds." 



24 

From the above it appears that Mr. Beare not only knew 
of my previous invitation, but was also gratified at my having, 
notwithstanding, accepted his. The bearing of all this on the 
credibility of his testimony against me, is confidently left to the 
intelligent and christian-minded readers of that testimony. 

The next specifications against me, in the retrograde order 
of time, are those numbered V and VI in the presentment. The 
circumstances are alleged to have occurred in the same family 
and on the same day, more than three years and a half ago. 
Here, too, the parties claiming to have been aggrieved, acted 
towards me, at subsequent periods, as it appeared by the evi- 
dence, in a manner which, the counsel for the prosecution being 
judge, was totally inconsistent with the idea of their having 
suffered indignity from me. Of the credit due to the evidence 
brought in support of their allegations, the Church will be able 
to judge by its perusal. Regarding that evidence, however, 
I have a general remark to make which will be appreciated by 
every reader who brings to the subject a proper estimate of the 
principles and requirements of sound christian morals. A de- 
fective view in a witness of the awful character and obligation 
of an oath, should, as with correctly thinking persons, it always 
does, detract from his credibility. The specifications now «on- 
sidered were founded on the affidavits of two sisters. The 
younger, Jane Rudderow, gives one of some length and minute- 
ness. The elder, Helen, gives one occupying but a few lines, 
in which she swears that every ivord of her sister's oath is true. 
Jane's oath, however, contained many details of which Helen 
does not pretend to have been an eye-witness. That she 
should have sworn unqualifiedly to the truth of matters of 
which she had no personal knowledge, manifests a carelessness 
on the subject which certainly detracts from the credibility of 
her testimony. The juxta-position of the two affidavits on the 
same sheet of paper, is among the reasons for receiving the 
two as the joint act of the sisters, a view of the case which 
will not be denied to be a true one. 

The moral influence, therefore, of this careless swearing 
must be regarded as extending to the question of the credibility 
of both. But this is not all. A more mournful consideration 
still, is the fact that the instrument containing these affidavits 



25 

is in the hand- writing of a minister of the gospel, the Rev. James 
C. Richmond. Of whatever defect of moral principle or moral 
sensibility this method of swearing shows to exist in them, the 
responsibility is certainly largely shared by him. 

I ought further to state that until my visit to Philadelphia in 
October last, I never received by word or otherwise, the least 
intimation of offence having been given to the complaining 
parties in this case. 

I now come to a period of more than four years, within 
which the presenters were not able to establish any thing to 
my disadvantage. More than seven and a half years ago, the 
circumstances are alleged to have occurred which are detailed 
in Articles I and II of the presentment. Of the second article, 
bringing against me the charge — the only one of the kind — of 
having been intoxicated that length of time ago, and drawing 
down upon me conviction of being, on that account, guilty of 
immorality, and subjecting me to punishment for the same, I 
have before spoken. I crave an unbiassed and just judgment 
of the evidence. It is, however, perhaps, no more than an act 
of justice to myself to add, as illustrative of the opportunity 
there was for intoxication, and the probability of its existence, 
that I had, on that day, in the morning, instituted the Rector of 
the parish, and preached on the occasion ; that after dinner I 
had preached, administered confirmation, and addressed the 
persons confirmed ; and that after this service, as soon as ar- 
rangements could be made, with a little delay owing to rain, 
we set out on our journey ; the interval having been spent 
with one of the most respectable families in Ithaca. 

Of the subject matter of the first article, I ask an unbiassed 
consideration of the evidence, and of what I have further to add 
in relation to it. 

This case also presents a painful instance of insensibility, on 
the part of a minister of the gospel, to the awfulness and sacred- 
ness of an oath. The Rev. Clement M. Butler swears to a 
statement, drawn up with great minuteness, of circumstances 
said to have occurred more than seven years before the affidavit 
was made out ; of the greater number and most important of 
which he had no personal cognizance ; and with regard to which, 
although it was constantly within his power, he had not refresh- 



26 

ed his memory during that whole period. What was the conse- 
quence ? He swore to an untruth — afterwards acknowledged by 
himself to be such. He swore that his wife told him what she 
never had told him, and what never occurred ; and the point thus 
falsely sworn to constituted the most serious charge brought 
against me in the whole presentment — a charge which has done 
me more injury than all the rest put together — a charge which 
was naturally regarded by the presenters as giving to his affida- 
vit its chief claim to their notice. 

But I have not yet done with this cruelly and most unjustifia- 
bly false accusation. Three different accounts of it are sworn 
to by Mr. Butler and his wife. He swears to it, in his affidavit, 
as a fact communicated to him by his wife at the first stopping 
place on our journey. Having been afterwards told by his wife 
that this was not so, for the circumstance sworn to had never oc- 
curred, he swears in court that the mistake arose from something 
his wife said to him in the carriage. She swears that she never 
said any thing to him of the kind ; but that he must have derived 
his mistaken idea from some gesture of hers, designed to illus- 
trate another matter. 

The published evidence will show other incongruities also be- 
tween the oaths of this clergyman and his wife. 

It is confidently left to men of sound sense and Christian prin- 
ciple, to say how far the claim of these oaths to implicit confi- 
dence is thus qualified. 

I request those who may peruse the evidence to give heed also 
to the following extracts from a letter, written under date of De- 
cember 27, 1844, to a clerical brother, by the Rev. Henry Gre- 
gory, the present Rector of St. Paul's Church, Syracuse, a 
clergyman whose name, with all who know him, is synonymous 
with the best official and personal qualifications for the holy 
ministry. He had made enquiries of parishioners who were in- 
timate with Mr. and Mrs. Butler, and after stating the fact that 
she, Mrs. Butler, was " not well at that time" the time of her 
going to Ithaca — (zfact of which the readers of the evidence 
will not fail to see the connection with a pretence, therein set 
forth, of sickness as the consequence of her journey from 
Ithaca,) — he writes as follows : — 



27 

"After their arrival here" — at Syracuse on their return to Ithaca — "Mrs. 
Cooke saw Mrs. Butler, and heard her speak of the journey and the Bishop. 
She spoke particularly of the kindness of the Bishop to her, and said she could 
scarcely have made the journey, had she not had his support, (she leaning on 
him in her weakness ;) but not one word did she say to Mrs. Cooke, (an intimate 
friend,) of any impropriety in the Bishop. 

"Mr. Peck's* mother-in-law, (Mrs. Griffing, who is well acquainted with the 
Bishop,) is one of the communicants in this Church, and is now here. Her 
daughter, (Mrs. Peek,) is dead. I called on her to-day. She recollected the 
fact well, that Mr. Peck was driver on that occasion. I asked her if either he 
or Mrs. Peck ever said any thing about any impropriety in the Bishop's conduct 
during that ride. 'Nothing,' she said, 'that she ever knew.' She says, he 
was always in the habit of closely observing things ; had a nice sense of pro- 
priety ; and was accustomed to speak freely of things to his wife and to her, 
when he came home. That after his return from Ithaca, he spoke of the nice 
pleasant ride they had, and particularly of the Bishop's kind attentions to Mrs. 
Butler, as though she were his child. Mrs. Griffing feels very confident that 
if Mr. Peck had observed any thing wrong, he would have mentioned it. Mr. 
Peck is probably in South America. On the 27th October last, he wrote to 
Mrs. Griffing that he expected that day to start." 

Respecting this letter of Mr. Gregory, Bishop Ives stales to 
me his recollection that the account I gave to him in Philadel- 
phia, of this ride to Syracuse, accorded exactly, in all material 
points, with that contained in the letter. 

It is right that I here correct Mr. Butler in a matter entirely 
irrelevant to the main point, in which he betrayed his desire to 
wound and injure me as much as possible. The reader of his 
evidence will find a reference therein to circumstances connected 
with his ordination as Priest, directly calculated to prejudice my 
official character. I proceed to give the true account of the 
case ; only premising that this is by no means the first time that 
my efforts to accommodate and favor others have been returned 
by ingratitude. 



* Mi-. Peck, spoken of by Mr. Gregory as a " very respectable man," drove the car- 
riage. His name is omitted in the presentment. It became first known to the de- 
fence when mentioned in the testimony in court. Measures were immediately adopetd 
for procuring bis attendance. He bad left the country, aud the letter of Mr. Gregory 
arrived too late for any use of its contents on the trial. 



28 

In the year of this ordiinlion, 1837, the diocese still comprised 
the whole stale. The churches in Onondaga county were not, 
that year, to be visited by me in course. For the purpose 
of ordaining Mr, Butler, however, in his own Church, I made a 
special appointment for Syracuse, naming the 24th of May as 
the day. On that day, accordingly, I was in the parish. Un- 
fortunately, the necessary papers from the Standing Committee 
had not arrived. The ordination, therefore, could not take place. 
This was a great disappointment ; it being much desired by Mr. 
Butler and his people that he should be ordained there. Anxious 
to accommodate them, I made another appointment for June 2d, 
although I knew that I could meet it only by very special and 
wearisome exertion. I expressed, however, the willingness, 
which I sincerely felt, to sacrifice all personal considerations to 
an object which I thought desirable in itself, and gratifying to a 
young brother, and his parish, whom I felt happy to serve. 
Accordingly, having passed the greater part of the preceding 
night in travelling thither, I arrived at Syracuse, at about ten 
o'clock, on the morning of June 2d. The hour of eleven had 
been appointed for the service. There was therefore, but one 
hour for all the needed personal and other preparations for the 
expected solemnity. The examination of the candidate was yet 
to be held. I expressed to the clergy present my great gratifica- 
tion, considering the emergency, that the young brother to be 
ordained had, within less than a year, completed an extended and 
satisfactory course of preparation for the ministry, under my 
constant supervision as a Professor in the General Theological 
Seminary of our Church, of which he had been admitted to the 
honorable rank of an alumnus. I mentioned this particularly to 
the Rev. Amos Pardee, the oldest presbyter present, to whom I 
looked for presenting the candidate, if he could conscientiously 
do so. I farther reminded him that presentment was on the 
double ground of enquiry and examination, and that the more 
satisfactory the enquiry, the less stringent need the examination 
be. Referring also to the urgency of the occasion, and my 
strong desire to gratify Mr. Butler and his people, and farther 
stating that his diaconate had been spent usefully and success- 
fully, I put to him a few leading questions, but was compelled 



29 

to leave him principally with Mr. Pardee and at least one other 
presbyter, to institute such examination as their sense of duty 
might require, and the present emergency allow. So much for 
the matter of the ordination, which Mr. Butler attempted to turn 
to my discredit and injury. 

In the present instance, too, T never had the least intimation of 
offence given, until last October, in Philadelphia ; that is, until 
more than seven years since it is alleged to have been given. 

There appears to have been, in the whole of the preparation 
for subjecting me to the late trial, a singular, and certainly a 
most unchristian effort, to evade the possibility of failing in that 
design, bv not allowing the chance which our Divine Lord pro- 
vides for his followers, of avoiding public discipline by the bene- 
ficial influence of private remonstrance. And surely not less 
singular and unchristian is the disposition thus manifested, to 
resist the Saviour's gracious purpose, in this blessed provision, of 
warding off scandal to His church. Three of the prominent 
actors in this matter, the Rev. Messrs. Paul Trapier, John B. 
Gallagher, and Clement M. Butler, had been connected with me 
by the sacred tie of Christian instructor, and Christian pupils. 
Not one of them ever uttered to me a word indicative of wound- 
ed feeling, of knowledge of charges against me, or of solicitude 
for what might be the consequence of evil report on one who had 
ever treated them as a father and a friend. The first that that 
father and friend knew that any of them had aught against him, 
was his finding them, as his formal accusers, arrayed for bring- 
ing down upon him the strong arm of the Discipline of the 
Church. How far their conduct admits, not of the excuse (for 
there can be none,) but of the explanation, that there were 
malignant promptings behind them, not yet fully brought to 
light, is what, in the providence of a just and righteous God, mav 
hereafter more clearly appear. Had they adopted the course 
which was bounden upon them as Christian men and Christian 
ministers, it is morally certain that they had not been guilty of 
inflicting such wounds on the Church, and bringing such wicked 
scandal on its holy cause. Having been the means of producing 
excitement against me in a distant part of the country, heighten- 
ed and rendered efficient by co-operation with enmity to my reli- 
gious principles, they found willing co-adjutors in the work of 



30 

stirring up strife within my own diocese. An agent from 
another distant state was employed, who, loudly proclaiming his 
work, in domestic circles, in places of public resort, among 
the masses congregated in travelling vehicles, any where 
and every where affording a hearing ear, spread the mat- 
ter far and wide, and set ten thousand tongues at work to 
spread it further. The press took it up, even in the lowest and 
most malignant form and spirit in which that mighty engine 
can do its work. Thus was there made a public rumor to 
which, three weeks before, this diocese was an utter stranger, 
and which was assumed as ground for instituting the trial, and 
pushing it to the conviction and punishment said to be de- 
manded by the thus disturbed community. I was the victim 
whose sacrifice was to meet the demand. 

My original plea of not guilty is here solemnly renewed. 
It respects both the purpose of my heart and the misconduct 
alleged. But let me not be suspected of putting forth any 
proud claim to exemption from frailty and sinfulness. While 
truth would be sacrificed did I profess consciousness of having 
justly incurred the verdict which has been awarded me, God 
knows that I presume not to absence of guilt before Him, in the 
perpetual sinfulness of my heart, and in daily leaving undone 
what I ought to do, and doing what I ought not to do. And 
God forbid that I should not be humbled under a sense of the 
too successful betrayments, in each of these classes of omis- 
sion and commission, into which I am often thrown. They 
are perpetual calls for contrition, humility, and repentance. 
May I have grace not to suffer them — God forgive me if I am 
Ivrong in the humble hope that I do not suffer them — to pass 
anheeded ! 

It has pleased my Maker to give me — friends and enemies 
unite to tell me so — a heart inclined warmly to reciprocate 
friendly affection, to yield to its reality or appearance in others, 
and to be unsuspicious of deceit in professed friends. I have 
carried this too far, and trusted too fully that my -own uncon- 
sciousness of any other than right emotion, entered also into 
the apparent sympathy with which I was met. As the result, 
exaggerations, distortions, mis-statements, have turned to ill 
what was really so neither in intent nor in deed. Evil, totally 



31 

undesigned and unthought of by me, and not justly attributa- 
ble to me, has, by this means, been done to a cause dearer to 
me than life. I humbly trust that I have profitted by the 
bitter experience, and earnestly pray — and ask the faithful 
fervent prayers of the beloved clergy and people of my dio- 
cese in my behalf — that this profiting may appear in all that, 
in my character and conduct, may pertain to the glory of God, 
the cause of His gospel, and the purity and prosperity of 
His Church. 

I know not how extensively efforts may still be in progress, 
and yet be multiplied, against me. There are propensities in 
the natural heart which foster even a love for rendering the 
unhappy still more miserable, for trampling the fallen still more 
deeply in the dust, for closing the door to all influence of the 
re-acting spirit of Christian justice and mercy, and for push- 
ing malevolent design to the utmost gratification. In the Lord 
put I my trust. To Him, as the Searcher of hearts, I commit 
my cause. 

I thank God that my connection with the diocese which I 
love so much, whose love to me has contributed so largely to 
my happiness, and in whose behalf I have so gladly and 
heartily, but, alas, so imperfectly labored, is not severed. I 
feel that this imposes upon me a most serious responsibility. 
I ask the union with my own, of the prayers of the diocese, 
that 1 may be rightly guided ; may be ready and willing to 
sacriiice to duty all personal considerations ; may not forget 
to cherish, as they should be cherished, reverence and submis- 
sion to authority ; may have grace to be free from unchristian 
resentment, for efforts that have been made, that may now be 
making, or that may yet be made, to destroy my character 
and influence ; and may be led, in all that may devolve upon 
me, to such decision and such action, as will beapproved by 
the Lord the Righteous Judge. 

BENJ. T. ONDERDONK. 

New York, January, 1845. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



029 51 



4 264 9 



[ENRY M. ONDE] 

25 JOHN STREET, 
NEW YORK. 



H. M. 0. would invite attention to the following list of Publications issued 
from his press. 

HISTORY OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCHES in the city of New York. 
This work is published in numbers of imperial octavo size. Each number con- 
tains two steel engravings, finished in the highest state of the art, and is printed 
upon the most costly paper made. It contains a reliable and accurate history 
of each city parish from its first formation, and a full description of the dif- 
ferent church edifices. Four numbers have been issued, and the fifth is now in 
press. To be complete in Twelve numbers, at TWENTY-FIVE CENTS each. 

REPRINT OF THE JOURNALS OF THE NEW YORK CONVEN- 
TIONS, reprinted under the supervision of the Bishop of the Diocese, and the 
Secretary of the Convention. This volume contains 480 pp, and embraces all 
the Journals from 1785 to 1819, both inclusive. Full bound, sheep, $2 00. 

DICTIONARY OF THE CHURCH, containing an exposition of Terms, 
Phrases, &c, connected with the Order, Sacraments, &c. of the Protestant Epis- 
copal Church. By Rev. Wm. Staunton. Third Edition. 12 mo., muslin, $1 25, 

MRS. LEICESTER'S SCHOOL, or the History of several Young Ladies* 
related by themselves. This valuahle and entertaining Juvenile Work, by 
Charles Lamb and Sister, is too well known to require comment. 16 mo. mus- 
lin. Plain, 50 cents. Gilt, 75 cents. 

FANNY HERBERT and other Stories. A most delightful Juvenile Work, 
by Mrs. Mary N. McDonald, containing Fanny Herbert, The Flower-vase, and 
The Hair Bracelet. The enviable reputation of the authoress of this little volume 
as a writer, is a sufficient recommendation of the character of the book. 16 
mo. muslin. Plain, 50 cents. Gilt, 75 cents. 

POEMS by M. N. M. (Mary N. McDonald). This beautiful volume of 
spirited and heart-touching Poetry, has met, since its publication, with unpre- 
cedented success. An edition of 2000 has been, in less than two months, nearly 
exhausted. About 200 copies remain on hand. Orders for the book should, 
therefore, be forwarded immediately. 8vo. muslin. Price $1 50. 

K7 ILLUSTRATED PRAYER BOOK. Edited by Rev. J. M. Wain wright, 
D. D. Illustrated with upwards of 700 engravings. Royal 8 vo. Turkey rnor. 
Gilt edge. $8 50.' 

IN PRESS. 
THE DOCTRINE OF THE CROSS, from the Second London Edition. 

HOLY BAPTISM, Prayers, Meditations, and select passages on the Saora- 
ment of Baptism, by Archdeacon Manning. 

H. M. O. keeps constantly on hand a general assortment of Theological and 
Standard Works elegant Prayer Books and Bibles, Stationary, &g. 



